Dew Claws??

aren't all dogs born with front dewclaws? afaik, the only ones who don't have them have had them removed.

i just don't understand cutting off functional body parts because there might be a problem with them down the road. i've been working in vet med for almost ten years now and i've never seen a badly torn dewclaw. not that they don't happen, but geez louise, that's a whole lot of toes we'd be cutting off to prevent very few injuries.

My dogs both have front dews and there has never been any problem. I like their dew claws. They are annoying to dremel/clip, though.

My childhood friend has a chihuahua who tore one of his dew claws on a sliding glass door and it was extremely painful for him, but it's the only dog I know who injured his dews. I'd never remove dew claws unless they were a serious problem or it was a puppy less than a few days old. I agree with Elegy, I would never do it "just in case."

Chloe doesnt have rear ones, but she does have front ones but they arent loose and dangly they are pretty high and tight so no they do not bother me at all....

ETA: Chloe sometimes uses her's

So all dogs should be left intact?

intact reproductively?

Well color be learned something new , i did not know all dogs where born with front ones but only some have back ones.

I seriously thought it was some did and some did not.

Yes..

I love you.

I don't understand he argumentative tone this has taken...but a vet can recommend a **** food and still save a life. Our Conan is proof of that

i don't think it's fair to compare that conversation to one about dew claws. there are so many facets and angles. i think there are reasons to speuter and reasons not to speuter, and that it's a bad thing that it is our tradition in this country to automatically remove the reproductive parts from our dogs as they are intrinsically important to the dogs' bodies in far more ways than simply making puppies.

dogs die from pyometras. dogs don't die from dewclaw injuries. removing dewclaws has an apparently detrimental impact on our dogs as it can lead to an increase in arthritic wrists. removing the reproductive bits from our dogs has an apparently detrimental impact on our dogs as it can lead to significant injury (blown CCLs) and really ugly cancers (hemangiosarcoma, osteosarcoma).

It comes from Neither is medical necessary. There are pros and cons to dew claw removal and neutering. You are the one labelling the one as medically necessary because a vet says so.

A vet can suggest crap food and still save a life. Doesn't mean their opinion is worth much as to what is necessary.

Spaying to prevent pyometra is removing a functional body part because there might be a problem down the road.

I s/n to prevent puppies. Period.
Dewclaws don't make puppies.

fair enough.

but i still haven't seen any dogs with life-threatening dew claw injuries.

Yes, they can.

But it doesn't mean that everything a vet determines as necessary or not is correct.

My vet doesn't live with my dog. My vet doesn't know my dogs' daily behaviors, challenges, needs. If my dog is going to spend a lot of time in situations that put him at risk for dew claw injury, then maybe I know more than my vet about whether or not it's in his best interest to have dew claws.

I had a dog with a knee problem. My regular vet didn't think it was a huge issue. One day we went in and saw a different vet at the clinic and he spent his free time working field labs. He understood about a sport dog and how big a deal a knee problem can become for a dog who is supposed to be running and jumping on a regular basis.

I also went to a vet for vaccinations who thought we should do about $1000 worth of tests and treatment for Tyr because he had bruising on his sheath. She couldn't accept the fact that he has it from masturbating. I explained what he does and she rolled her eyes and said she'd never seen such a thing.

Another vet diagnosed Ares with a sprained wrist, which I could tell wasn't even close to correct. She said he flinched...I promise you, he didn't. When we were able to see our regular vet a couple days later, she touched his shoulder and he screamed. A bruised scapula isn't anywhere close to a sprained wrist.

When Ares had his neck injury, I asked my vet - repeatedly - whether or not we should be doing more for him. X rays, magnets, physical therapy, hydrotherapy, anything. She kept insisting he was fine. It wasn't long after that I had to retire him because he couldn't stay sound. I'll never know if we could have prevented the calcification he has now.

I had a cat with a wheezing problem die from an allergic reaction because my vet didn't think there was anything wrong with him and I believed my vet to know best.

But yep, we should only do what the vet determines is necessary, right?

I use a leash to prevent puppies.

You guys are being argumentative for the sake of argument. So have at it, I'm done.
I got the contract revised, and that'll suffice - with input from people who actually make sense

For one thing - without spay/neuter, I cannot have a Petfinder page. Since that's important to the finding of these animals homes, I will always spay/neuter. Besides there's that silly little thing called pet overpopulation...but anyways...

And Corgi - I'm glad a leash works for you - I wish all owners were responsible enough to keep intact animals but unfortunately they are not.
One glance in your local kill shelter can tell you that, or better, yet, run on over to craigslist.

I can't address the rest of the "argument" because it's strayed so far from reality, it's not even recognizable.
Oh, and I revived the thread in health about the benefits of s/n so that's a good place to hash out your differences on the subject opcorn:

Wow. Seriously!?

A neutered Lab at work does this... the first time I saw it I thought he was having a seizure... only to realize!!!

I agree about spaying/neutering being forced and overused in this country. IMO, the vast majority of unwanted litters are produced intentionally. Not only that, but spaying/neutering does not save lives if those dogs are still not being properly contained. People who do not keep their dogs safe and confined at all times put those dogs at risk of dying in a number of horrible ways, nevermind producing puppies. When they forced me to get my foster Pit Bull neutered at 3.5 months, I was heartbroken. They said "the last thing we need is more Pit Bulls!" hmmm ok... well, this Pit Bull is a great dog, and I feel that he deserves to be able to keep his hormones in his body while he's growing. He definitely wasn't going to knock up any bitches living under my roof! But no, it's easier for younger puppies to recover, and they don't want to take that risk. Forget about the risk of being neutered so early affecting him for the rest of his life.

I no longer go in the Fire Hydrant because I'm sick to death of nonstop political threads. I've learned to avoid threads about rescues on this board, because it chased me away from here for several months at one point. I figured a dew claw thread would be safe, but never fear; people here can get their panties in a freaking wad about anything, and turn any thread around to suit their own agenda.

For what it is worth, I have a dog who runs in the woods, runs agility, and scales 15" stacks of hay bales on a regular basis. I have never once had in issue with her front dew claws. I'd never realized anyone removed them as prevention.

Small, rural shelters like my own do not have the luxary of screening adopters. Anyone with $75 gets a dog, so all animals are fixed before they leave the door.

This did not used to be how it was...we used to let people bring puppies back when they were six months old. However, no one ever did, and we got in a ton of puppies from dogs we were adopting out. If a shelter adopts out unaltered animals, they are just hurting the problem.

Oh, and we very rarely get intentionally produced puppies in our shelter. Most of them are "oops" litters. While volunteering there Saturday, I counted about 24 litters, not counting the single puppies and the ones that went to "E" that day.